Why not to insert something like this into the SC? I think this will
make things much clear.

Because I think it belongs in the DFSG, and because the recent
constitutional amendment says that the DFSG is a separate document than
the SC.

SC also uses this term. Anyway, it will be nice to have this definition
somewhere in this documents. It's important for such a document to be as
clear as possible. It seems to be confusing and should be clarified.

Anyway, I do not think that "dropping non-free" and "GFDL (non)freeness"
are related topics, except both of topics depend on SC and DFSG.

Except that, according to the DFSG and the SC, GFDL nonfreeness means
that GFDL belongs in non-free. So dropping all of non-free should mean
dropping GFDL.

I completely understand this. I think it is nice to drop evil non-free,
even if minority(?) thinks that some part of it is free.

Also, the other stuff in non-free is not necessarily more non-free than

GFDL.

I feel myself free to package and use any program which I think is free.
I do not think there is a problem here.

> [How do you measure "non-freeness"? By the number of debian's

free software guidelines which are satisfied?]

Most of the time I am satisfied with DFSG and, of course FSF comments[1]
and OSD[2]. Fortunately I rarely need to measure non-freeness. When I
need, I use approach similar to what you describe.